Theresa May to end ban on grammar schools

[noblegiraffe]

Theresa May to end ban on grammar schools, reports the Telegraph.

This is not a policy announcement, rather a testing of the waters, I suspect.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/06/theresa-may-to-end-ban-on-new-grammar-schools/

"I think we must be tough as old boots in Casa Carl as we don't take our failures forward with us"

Any of yours fail a one go test at 10 that separated them from their friends and meant they spent the next 7 years wearing a blazer that showed they had failed?

Lemon I think you're wilfully (sorry) missing the point that 10 year olds don't just pick up messages from their parents. There will be an overwhelming narrative from the society around them that "passing" for the grammar is better than "passing" for the secondary moderns. However sensitive the parents are (and not all will be) you won't stop other kids in the class showing their joy when they pass, sorry "prove to be suitable for the grammar". And that's not to mention the sort of things they'll hear from others around them.

Bertrand The school I was talking about the one my friend's child goes to. As per my previous post most comprehensives in the town where I work have that pass rate (36/37/38%) And no grammar in town.

There's failing and failing. I'd be astounded if any of us hadn't ever talked down a child upset at not getting a part, not being in a team, getting a disappointing AS result, and then looked back and been able to think about how well the child bounced back from something which seemed to them like the end of the world for a week in 2013. It doesn't mean we should add an extra one, particularly not one so very important as this (and anyone who doesn't think it is an important thing to pass should surely think about why they then think it's an important thing for some children to access!).

goodbye I didn't say that there was going to be But if the option is there for an established school to turn selective (and it's not yet clear whether overturning the ban would allow this or not), why would certain leafy, middle class comps not take it?

Dixie what would improve your town's comprehensives wouldn't be the introduction of the grammar, but the total ending of selection, by faith or by exam. Then your bright kids with engaged parents wouldn't be bussed out of the city, but would be going to the local comp, and the will would be there to make those comps as good as possible.

There's talk of how to improve coastal schools with targeted investment, encouraging good teachers to do a stint there - I know Teach First have targeted some deprived areas. The issues in those places will not be solved by a grammar.

Hay I don't agree. Most at ours travel miles.

Is this a Bournemouth/Poole school? If not, why do you disagree? Other superselectives may well not affect the surrounding schools. The Bournemouth/Poole case (and the results of local schools) indicates that the grammars do noticeably push down the A level results of surrounding schools.

BTW if most at yours travel miles this already tells us that your school is taking mostly wealthy kids. Poor kids just couldn't afford to travel miles.

I think we must be tough as old boots in Casa Carl as we don't take our failures forward with us

It's one of the very nasty double standards around this debate that whilst we're supposed to pity the bright kid in a bad comp who is supposedly ruined by that experience and will spend their life scarred by the memory , the kid in the bad SM is meant to treat their failure and subsequent bad education as a valuable learning experience.

Deprived northern town I used to live in, our catchment comprehensive was 35% A-C inc English and maths. Again religion RC gets you 63% or bus to C of E school out of town 66%. 37% of town are Muslim so only choice to go to catchment comp or try for out of catchment grammar 15 miles/state selective. A grammar there would really increase options and would I imagine be very popular. Conservative M.P.

It's one of the very nasty double standards around this debate that whilst we're supposed to pity the bright kid in a bad comp who is supposedly ruined by that experience and will spend their life scarred by the memory , the kid in the bad SM is meant to treat their failure and subsequent bad education as a valuable learning experience

A thousand times yes, HPFA - brilliantly put.

Dixie when all the talk is of how to avoid the comp instead of improving the comp, then it's no surprise when it doesn't do very well.

Both my DC have faced rather worse issues than the 11+ I'm sad to say.

In the scheme of things it's small fry.

the kid in the bad SM is meant to treat their failure and subsequent bad education as a valuable learning experience.

Sadly that seems to be the way things are now. The wealthy need stupidly inflated salaries and tax breaks as an incentive. The poor, by contrast, need a kick in the teeth to motivate them.

Thanks, Seek I was beginning to think I was a bit delusional!

Carl I'm sorry that your children have had bad life experiences and that will give you a different perspective on things.

There are many children who take pressure and failure (or perceived failure) badly. Witness the many threads in the run up to the SATs by parents who want to remove their children from them because it is causing their child mental health issues.

Agree, good post HPFA

The thing is noble it's really really hard to get schools to change things.

Especially when what you're asking for goes against SLT ideology.

So many schools are resistant to measures that could really help their high ability students. It's incredibly frustrating.

It would cost around £500 per year for DC from my area to go on the bus to the nearest (superselective) grammar. For many families it wouldn't just be about cutting out gadgets or holidays; they couldn't pay £500 per year per child, whatever they tried to cut out.

The thing is noble it's really really hard to get schools to change things

Really? My school (and many others) would change things at the drop of a hat if it affected league tables, floor targets or Ofsted ratings. The Ebacc has changed our whole options process, for example. Pupil premium has changed things a lot for disadvantaged kids.
These schools bumping along at 30% are below floor target, SLT could be swept out and replaced with new SLT if necessary. That might focus their minds...

when all the talk is of how to avoid the comp instead of improving the comp, then it's no surprise when it doesn't do very well.

But realistically, how can a parent have enough clout to improve their local comp? We, as parents, make the decisions we think right for OUR own children. Changing "everyone's" education is only something we can do via the ballot box, but there's barely been any difference between political parties as regards education. I'm not deluded enough to think that sending my kid to a failing comp will make a blind bit of difference to the school or the other kids - maybe if hundreds did it, then yes eventually, but one lone voice in the wilderness - not a chance!

Personally, I would like a ban on ALL forms of selection and stop the ridiculous situation of kids travelling miles to their choice of school, and have "choice" restricted to your nearest 2/3 comps. Yes, a ban on the 11+, but only alongside a ban on Faith school selection and ALL other forms of selection, such as sports, arts, languages, etc. Then all comps would be on a level playing field and would reflect their relatively small geographic area. As I've said many times, in our area, the two HUGE faith schools are out of all proportion and between them have a far greater impact on the other comps than our relatively small grammar school - together they're four time bigger than the grammar, yet parents moan that it's the grammar that sucks the good kids away from the failing comps - the same parents who lie and cheat their way to get a decent comp education for their kids.

Thank you noble.

I do not carry a badge of dishonor for failing my 11+ 30 odd years ago !

'Stockholm Syndrome ' strikes again...

I was a very low achiever and can't even remember taking my 11+, so it does not create any 'chips' on my shoulder .

However, what does grate me is that i went though the whole of Primary and Secondary education unable to hold a pen correctly. The fact i went through the whole of my school life with undiagnosed Special Educational needs has influenced my life, far more than a test at 11.

I totally agree, we have special schools for children with SN, including my dd, so why not for children who are academic. They need to be provided for too. I used to be a TA in a comprehensive school, sometimes the teacher would be half hour/40 mins in before teaching would start, as the teacher would be busy dealing with disruptive pupils. The ones who are able and who want to learn are disadvantaged as they missed half the lesson.